Ivor was a 'fool' to be 'trapped' like that in a listening test that is set up to generate 'null' results, unless one 'cheats'. [snip].

I don't know what you mean by this John, but if one participant can score 100% just because of the noise level diffrences, and Ivor scores not better than tossing a coin, how can that be 'set up to generate null results'? Ivor didn't hear any difference. So?
I mean, I can understand he felt urinated, I would be too, and by proxy you are apparently are too. But you can't unreasonably accuse people of 'cheating' just because you hate the result.

No, but I will not do much criticism from now on. I expect you to find something and not be able to explain it and that is where it will be left.

As a general comment, I don't think some folks around here appriciate the level of sophistication that has been around for decades in the precision instrument domain. I could go on forever nuclear research, ultrasound, CAT, PET, geoscience. To think that audio taxes the limits of collective engineering wisdom is unbelievably fatuous and a fantacy. Good solid engineering practice works in audio as well as anywhere else.

Scott,

That strikes me as a bit snide, finding something is the first and sometimes not so easy step. Once the technique is reliable then comes the task of ruling out what it is not. That takes far longer. As this is a hobby and not my main concern I share the techniques so others who wish to try things may do so.

The nice thing is the folks who illuminate the phenomena with useful cites or experience. Resistor distortion turns out to have been well covered in the 60's. The only thing new seems to be a simpler technique for measuring it. Cable distortion, passive intermodulation distortion and directionality seems to be covered to a fairly good extent by the cell phone base station designers. Would not have found the papers without others' knowledge.

I think the area where we really disagree is at what level distortion or noise is perceived as a problem. That being OPINION there is no easy resolution.

"Eric Valentine, a record producer from Los Angeles, built his own recording console . He painstakingly hand-selected ‘audiophile’ capacitors, discrete devices, high-quality wiring. He is convinced that that makes the music that comes out of his console somehow sound ‘better’ than from a standard mass-produced console. Yet, on an intellectual level he knows that in a controlled test he may not be able to hear a difference if those special capacitors would be exchanged for standard industrial ones. He has learned to accept that, because he knows that the way he designed, sourced and built his console makes him work just a bit harder to do the best he can. In that sense, those special components do contribute to ‘better sound’. Eric is one of the very few people I’ve ever met who has come to grips with this basic dichotomy and became a better audio producer because of it."

What are the typical conditions of formal ABX testing ????.
Through long audio experience I am well able to discern and describe reasonably subtle differences quickly and reliably on music and systems and environment that I am well familiar with...for REALLY fine differences I may require multiple AAA-BBB-AA-BB-AB plays of particular passages on music that I know intimately to isolate and define sonic subjective differences.
Then after that comes longer term listening over multiple tracks/albums/genres that can extend to hours or days to properly establish subjective opinions.
Can it be that typical ABX testing of FINE differences is fundamentally flawed because it does not meet the above conditions ????.

Who says it doesn't meet the above conditions?

Tom Nousaine has set up a number of people with ABX systems in their own home, using their own system, so they can do all the AAAA BBBB whatever they want at their leisure for as long as they want.

And it's worth nothing that during blind tests, listeners are confident that they're "hearing" differences. If they weren't, then you couldn't really perform the test in the first place. However when the results are revealed, their responses are no better than random guessing.

"Eric Valentine, a record producer from Los Angeles, built his own recording console . He painstakingly hand-selected ‘audiophile’ capacitors, discrete devices, high-quality wiring. He is convinced that that makes the music that comes out of his console somehow sound ‘better’ than from a standard mass-produced console. Yet, on an intellectual level he knows that in a controlled test he may not be able to hear a difference if those special capacitors would be exchanged for standard industrial ones. He has learned to accept that, because he knows that the way he designed, sourced and built his console makes him work just a bit harder to do the best he can. In that sense, those special components do contribute to ‘better sound’. Eric is one of the very few people I’ve ever met who has come to grips with this basic dichotomy and became a better audio producer because of it."

Actually, Eric had another great story. At his AES both he conducted a preference test for two DACs with a headphone output. Visitors were handed a headphone and a switch and were requested to decide which one sounded best. The two DACs had a 1:10 price difference. As long as the two DACs were sitting there on the counter, the preference was 80% vs 20% in favor of the expensive one.
As soon as the DACs were moved behind the counter, out of sight, the preferences were 22% vs 78%, in favor of the cheap one.